Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Racism - Mod Note on 1st Post - Read before posting.

1…2526283031…222

Comments

  • #812
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    Rashad Wrong History wrote: »
    If there was evidence it would have been all over skysports news within hours of the game. So its safe to say there is no evidence.

    No it is not "safe to say". Sky do not have cameras on every single player, covering every single conversation between players. They don't even have uninterrupted coverage of the Terry/Ferdinand issue. It is entirely possible that something can be said on a pitch without a camera catching it. I am not saying that there was something said, I'm just saying it could easily happen off camera.


  • #813
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,137 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    You can call if whatever the **** you want, but he is going to continue to wind the **** out of utd fans for a long time to come.


  • #814
    Mr Alan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    flahavaj wrote: »
    LOL actually at Alan's "new information line." He already had his mind made up when the only information he had to hand wasn't even true!!! Gas man.:pac:

    And if new information had of come to light I'd have changed my opinion. However, thus far it's panned out exactly as I was expecting.


  • #815
    Mr Alan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    parker kent wrote: »
    No it is not "safe to say". Sky do not have cameras on every single player, covering every single conversation between players. They don't even have uninterrupted coverage of the Terry/Ferdinand issue. It is entirely possible that something can be said on a pitch without a camera catching it. I am not saying that there was something said, I'm just saying it could easily happen off camera.

    It would have had to have happened off camera more than 10 times.

    I presume you can admit that's less likely?


  • #816
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    And if new information had of come to light I'd have changed my opinion. However, thus far it's panned out exactly as I was expecting.

    It funny because you made up your mind in a flash. Even when it emerged the main reason you used to come to that opinion was actualy totally untrue you still maintained your stance.


  • Advertisement
  • #817
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    Until the investigation is complete and results are published, people talking in definitive terms about a lack of evidence are talking through their arse.


  • #818
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,137 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    flahavaj wrote: »
    It funny because you made up your mind in a flash. Even when it emerged the main reason you used to come to that opinion was actualy totally untrue you still maintained your stance.


    Well don't nearly all utd fans back evra and believe he is telling the truth and that he was racially abused even though there is no evidence to back this.


  • #819
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    niallo27 wrote: »
    Well don't nearly all utd fans back evra and believe he is telling the truth and that he was racially abused even though there is no evidence to back this.

    The only one taking that kind of hardcore stance on here appears to be Le King that I've read anyway. So no.


  • #820
    monkey9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,337 ✭✭✭✭monkey9


    flahavaj wrote: »
    I hope the FA do take Evra's previous into account in this case. He has already shown remarkable honesty in stating someone didn't racially abuse him, even when people from his own club said he did.

    Maith thú a Phadraig.

    He stated no such thing!


  • #821
    pistolpetes11
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 7,149 Mod ✭✭✭✭pistolpetes11


    This thread is going around in circles !

    180792.png



    A good read mind you ,

    As I said in an earlier post , there needs to mediation with the two players , sort it out pronto because this is going to grow the divide between the two sets of fans , maybe even players ?

    After the mediation they two of them should front the kick it out campaign for a few weeks or months cause there is nothing really solid to back up the claims and again nothing solid to say the claims are false.

    Its time for the the FA to make the best of bad situation, they have created a storm around this by not dealing with it quickly.


  • Advertisement
  • #822
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    niallo27 wrote: »
    Well don't nearly all utd fans back evra and believe he is telling the truth and that he was racially abused even though there is no evidence to back this.

    I'm saying that there could be some truth to what he claims and that lack of "proof" on camera so far does not mean it did not happen. That seems a pretty common opinion on here.

    Somebody saying that it may have happened without there being proof on camera is not the same as somebody saying they actually believe he was racially abused. How could I know one way or the other? Only Evra and Suarez know.


  • #823
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,137 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    flahavaj wrote: »
    The only one taking that kind of hardcore stance on here appears to be Le King that I've read anyway. So no.

    So you are not backing Evra and you think he may be lying, or do you think like me it might just have being a misunderstanding and a saying lost in translation meaning suarez is not a racist. Its a lot more black and white on our side you either think Suarez is a racist or not, where as evra could be lying or misheard what was said or misinterpreted what was said.


  • #824
    monkey9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,337 ✭✭✭✭monkey9


    This thread really has kicked off again today since Suarez denied racially abusing Evra!! He denied it a few weeks back also!!


  • #825
    amiable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,206 ✭✭✭✭amiable


    niallo27 wrote: »
    So you are not backing Evra and you think he may be lying, or do you think like me it might just have being a misunderstanding and a saying lost in translation meaning suarez is not a racist. Its a lot more black and white on our side you either think Suarez is a racist or not, where as evra could be lying or misheard what was said or misinterpreted what was said.
    In fairness to Flah i think he's willing to see the outcome


  • #826
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    niallo27 wrote: »
    So you are not backing Evra and you think he may be lying, or do you think like me it might just have being a misunderstanding and a saying lost in translation meaning suarez is not a racist. Its a lot more black and white on our side you either think Suarez is a racist or not, where as evra could be lying or misheard what was said or misinterpreted what was said.

    He could be lying - and if he is should be thrown out of the club. I am not so blinded by club bias that I can't countenance the possibility he may be in the wrong.

    On the other handI think I've only seen one Liverpool poster even consider for a second the possibility that Suarez actually did what he is accused of.


  • #827
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    monkey9 wrote: »
    He stated no such thing!

    I should have said Evra stated ''he didn't hear any racial abuse, despite United staff claiming they did.'' Point stands.


  • #828
    Ordinary man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,490 ✭✭✭Ordinary man


    niallo27 wrote: »
    So you are not backing Evra and you think he may be lying, or do you think like me it might just have being a misunderstanding and a saying lost in translation meaning suarez is not a racist. Its a lot more black and white on our side you either think Suarez is a racist or not, where as evra could be lying or misheard what was said or misinterpreted what was said.

    It's not about whether suarez is a racist, it's about whether he used racist terms


  • #829
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    All the nonsense about Evra being the boy who cried racism are annoying. Mike Phelan and Richard Harris made the claims about the Chelsea groundsman. Deaf TV viewers made the claims about Steve Finnan. This is the first time Evra himself has come out with racism claims.


  • #830
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    Ordinary man wrote: »
    It's not about whether suarez is a racist, it's about whether he used racist terms

    If he bakes cake, is he not a baker?


  • #831
    Bodhisopha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,068 ✭✭✭Bodhisopha


    flahavaj wrote: »
    He could be lying - and if he is should be thrown out of the club. I am not so blinded by club bias that I can't countenance the possibility he may be in the wrong.

    On the other handI think I've only seen one Liverpool poster even consider for a second the possibility that Suarez actually did what he is accused of.

    It must gall you to see Mike Phelan holding such an important position at the club.

    Fair play Flah, i respect your integrity.


  • Advertisement
  • #832
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    Bodhisopha wrote: »
    It must gall you to see Mike Phelan holding such an important position at the club.

    Fair play Flah, i respect your integrity.

    Again, the possibility exists that Phelan heard what the groundsman said, but Evra did not, no?


  • #833
    Mr Alan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    parker kent wrote: »
    This is the first time Evra himself has come out with racism claims.

    That's not true.

    He has claimed in the past that he has been called a monkey by crowds when playing in Senegal.


  • #834
    Blatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    Bodhisopha wrote: »
    It must gall you to see Mike Phelan holding such an important position at the club.

    Fair play Flah, i respect your integrity.

    Mike Phelan wasn't proven to be lying.

    There may have been racist abuse directed towards Evra at SB, that Phelan heard, and Evra didn't.

    Indeed I don't think A. Ferdinand heard JT say the words black c*nt towards him and only found out some time after the match.


  • #835
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    flahavaj wrote: »

    On the other handI think I've only seen one Liverpool poster even consider for a second the possibility that Suarez actually did what he is accused of.

    I don't think any Liverpool posters has said it isn't possible.

    There just doesn't appear to be any evidence that it was racial abuse, barring Evra's statement.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #836
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    K-9 wrote: »
    I don't think any Liverpool posters has said it isn't possible.

    There just doesn't appear to be any evidence that it was racial abuse, barring Evra's statement.

    More than one have outright said they think Evra is lying and have done so from day one, even when the main argument they used to form their opin ion was shown to be flawed at one stage.


  • #837
    Mr Alan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    Blatter wrote: »
    Mike Phelan wasn't proven to be lying.

    There may have been racist abuse directed towards Evra at SB, that Phelan heard, and Evra didn't.

    Evra was in a better position to hear & didn't.

    And Phelan & Harris were found to contradict eachother in their statements about the racial abuse. The panel was fairly scathing in saying there was sufficient reason to believe the racial aspect was fabricated.


  • #838
    Blatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    Evra was in a better position to hear & didn't.

    And Phelan & Harris were found to contradict eachother in their statements about the racial abuse. The panel was fairly scathing in saying there was sufficient reason to believe the racial aspect was fabricated.

    Can you provide a link to these claims please? You've already got things wrong when it's come to specifics tonight;)

    If the panel was so scathing and sure the accusations of racial abuse were fabricated, then were Mike Phelan and United staff charged and punished accordingly, and if not, why not?


  • #839
    Mr Alan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    Blatter wrote: »
    Can you provide a link to these claims please? You've already got things wrong when it's come to specifics tonight;)

    The FA released the full findings. The PDF version can be read online. Look it up.
    Blatter wrote:
    If the panel was so scathing and sure the accusations of racial abuse were fabricated, then were Mike Phelan and United staff charged and punished accordingly, and if not, why not?

    Unfortunately false allegations of this nature have never really been punished in football I'm afraid.


  • #840
    Bodhisopha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,068 ✭✭✭Bodhisopha


    Blatter wrote: »
    Can you provide a link to these claims please? You've already got things wrong when it's come to specifics tonight;)

    If the panel was so scathing and sure the accusations of racial abuse were fabricated, then were Mike Phelan and United staff charged and punished accordingly, and if not, why not?


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/3814849/FA-Battle-of-the-Bridge-report-in-full.html

    See from about point 38 down. Mike Phelan not only contradicts Harris but he also contradicts the oral evidence he gave months earlier. You have to admit, it looks very dodgy.


  • Advertisement
  • #841
    Bodhisopha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,068 ✭✭✭Bodhisopha


    It's pretty tedious, this just about sums it up.
    52. Mr Griffin was the very first witness before us. The next two were Mr Phelan and Mr Hartis. Even before hearing the rest of the witnesses, we did not feel able to place strong reliance on their evidence. Mr Phelan particularly did not impress us. He supported his contention that he heard the racist remark by telling us that throughout the renewed incident following Mr Evra’s running back towards Mr Bethell, his Mr Phelan’s attention was directly focussed on Mr Bethell. There is a point in DVD4 where Mr Phelan remained adamant that he was looking directly at Mr Bethell though the members of the Commission could all see plainly that Mr Phelan was actually looking more sideways at his own colleague Mr Strudwick, who was himself clearly in an aggressive state and appeared to be shouting towards the Chelsea group. That is not the precise point at which he claimed in his statement to have heard the racist remark but it nevertheless reinforced our doubts about Mr Phelan’s evidence. We were also not convinced by Mr Hartis, who claims to have heard the same remark from a position at a similar distance from Mr Bethell. We prefer the evidence of Mr Bethell himself.

    53. For the reasons summarised above, our finding is the alleged racist remark by Mr Bethell (calling Mr Evra a “******* immigrant”) was not made. That takes out of the first charge against Chelsea the ingredient of racist conduct and/or language by its employee Mr Bethell, which is not proven. All other elements of the charge are proven on the evidence. It is clear that Mr Bethell did not conduct himself in an orderly fashion and that he engaged in abusive and provocative conduct and language.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement